It's become clear to me that she's either a shameless and compulsive liar, or is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder.

On Friday, I posted about Pelosi's utterly false statement that our elected representatives not only read the bills they vote on (when we all know better), but they read the bills "in two ways". I guess the two ways are "not at all" and "only in your taxpaying dreams, fools".

This morning at RealClearPolitics, I see she's at it again. Speaking of the TEA Party:

She says many of those voters have good intentions but that the Republican Party has hijacked the movement for its gain.

This initiative is funded by the high end - we call call it astroturf, it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.

Poor Nancy. Clearly there's something wrong with her memory or her mind. Good thing she has that wonderful Federal Health Care. You know, the one she's going to fight tooth and nail to keep even if she manages to foist off Obamacare on the rest of us.

The moderators will be Steve from Motor City Times, and myself. We will post alternating questions on our own sites (with MCT starting things off for us tomorrow) while linking to replies and follow-ups, as well as linking the running commentary from the other blogs involved.

That's Right and The Classic Liberal will post their responses to the questions, and the follow-ups to one another, on their respective blogs.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Heh. Post Turtle. I saw this on Facebook, and thought I'd die laughing:

While suturing up a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand had been caught in the gate while working his cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama, and his being our president.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is just a Post Turtle."

Now... not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked, "What's a 'Post Turtle?'"

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain...

"You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, he sure as heck ain't going anywhere, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there in the first place."

I'm sure it's an old joke, but it's new to me and I got a big laugh out of it. Hope you did, too.

JammieWearingFool has a video of Nancy Pelosi answering some questions about the Health Care Reform legislation from the ignorant peasants American voters. As I sat watching, almost entranced by a forehead that never creases and a pasted on grimace pretending to be a smile, she said something that caused me to channel Joe Wilson (R-SC):

"You lie!"

Here's the video. Those of you without a cast iron stomach who don't want to sit through 8 1/2 minutes of San Fran Nan can skip right to question five, which comes at around 6:45.

The question is more of a comment. While I couldn't make out the name, this was the point:

"Bills should be read by members of Congress."

The comment also made mention of using clear language instead of legal gobbledygook. I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard Pelosi's answer:

"I agree. And they should be. And they are. We have reading sessions right here where we read them together."

--snip--

"So we read the bill in two ways... the way it is written in legislative language, and a presentation of it in lay language, so that people know... uh... how they can... uh... what it is they're voting on and how they can explain it back home."

This is nothing short of a bald-faced lie. Complete and utter bullshit. There's more truth to global warming than there is to this statement. Only the paralyzing effects of her botox overdose could have allowed her to say this with a straight face.

Here we find Pelosi's fellow criminal Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) making no pretense at all about his unwillingness to read a bill before voting on it:

And the money quote:

“I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

So, does this mean Conyers doesn't read them once, let alone "in two ways"? You betcha. And never mind that while he's bemoaning the lack of two lawyers, Congress is crawling with them like a roach infestation.

But surely he's the only one, right? I mean, when we elect these folks to make votes on our behalf, they must understand we expect them to have read whatever they're voting on... Right?

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life.”

Somebody should tell this jackass if he's not qualified for the job to resign. (Somebody should tell him the American people were somehow able to muddle through the language... because we had a vested interest in making sure someone read it, so we did it ourselves. Thanks.)

And somebody should tell Nancy Pelosi to google her talking points before she opens her mouth. These statements - and more - are out there, directly contradicting her "read the bill in two ways" lie. From TheHill.com:

On at least two dozen occasions in 2009, the transparency rules have been shelved — including on votes on wage discrimination, climate change and children’s health insurance, according to statistics culled by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group.

But... but... Nancy Pelosi says they don't just read the bills, they "read the bill in two ways"!

You lie!

ReadtheBill.org has a heartbreaking roundup of their legislation-without-representation joke on America. And yet, with video evidence against her, contradictory statements by her fellow Congress Critters and multiple websites that document Congress not reading bills, Nancy Pelosi still has the unmitigated gall to say "We read the bill in two ways."

Why? Because she thinks we're stupid. That's the only possible explanation for her blatant dishonesty spewed through that vapid-yet-frightening grimace she thinks is a believable smile.

Well, I'm not stupid. I'm pissed. There's very little that makes me as angry as someone smiling in my face while they lie their ass off. Of all the offensive, patronizing, condescending nonsense! I'm as disgusted by a politician as I've ever been, and I can only offer one rebuttal to Pelosi:

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

"I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Why? Men don't have jobs."

-snip-

"Women don't have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time," he said."Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive," the majority leader added. "Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

Is Senator Reid sending voters a subliminal message? Something like:

"If you don't re-elect me, I'm gonna lump up the ol' lady!"

Maybe Nevada should either vote for Senator Reid... or have a domestic abuse hotline on call for Mrs. Reid. I mean, if being unemployed makes a man violent and all...

Monday, February 22, 2010

Scott Brown (R-MA) intends to vote with the Democrats on the jobs bill.

While I'm already seeing calls of "RINO", I don't see why this comes as a surprise. Brown stated from day one he would be a "Scott Brown Republican", and that he would make independent decisions from one matter to the next, based solely on the bill at hand.

“I’m going to look at each issue, I’ve already made my intentions very, very clear,” Brown said. “I don’t owe anybody anything. There will be times when I will be with the leadership and there’ll be times when I won’t.”

This attitude is one of the things I respect about Brown the most, and why - as a Pennsylvania independent (at the time) - I was cheering him on to victory in Massachusetts. I like the idea of a politician making independent decisions, and I admire a man who can put it so bluntly:

If I see a bill that's good for my state first and I don't care where it comes from, if it is good for Massachusetts first, I will look at and it consider it. I have always worked across party lines to solve problems and have a history of 6,000 votes doing just that. I'm looking forward to analyzing each every bill and making a decision when it comes up.

I don't know how serious folks are about the "RINO" accusations. Since I am now personally a Republican In Name Only, I can see where such a title may not always be taken as the intended insult anyway...

But, for what it's worth, I think it's a refreshing change to have a politician who is doing pretty much exactly what he told us he'd do.

This comes as a shock only to those who (because they aren't wise enough to read my blog) were unaware of the Insta-personator. Regular readers can't have missed young Matthew who, wisdom of tattoo choices aside, bears an uncanny resemblance to our Professor...

(Image courtesy of JammieWearingFool)

(Image courtesy of Wikipedia)

Just scroll up and down as you mentally dress young Matthew in a turtleneck.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Contrary to what you think you see here, these are not pregnant men. Thomas Beatie (left) is a transgender male currently expecting his third child. Scott Moore (right) is another transgender man, expecting his first child.

BOTH of these "men" were born as women, and then had gender reassignment surgery. So why do I have a problem with the description? Because both men retained their female reproductive organs, and that's what they're using to carry and bear children.

Readers of this blog know, I have no issue with the homosexual community. I support gay marriage, a repeal of DADT, and equal treatment for all under the law. I also have no problem (really, no opinion either way) on gender reassignment surgery...

But if you have a functioning uterus that happens to be filled with a growing baby, and you intend to push that baby into the world through a vagina, then you are not a pregnant man. You are a pregnant woman who has modified portions of her anatomy that (clearly) don't change your basic biological makeup.

I'm not bashing these folks. Really. I'm happy for them that they will be bringing children into what seem to be loving families, and I believe children enrich our lives.

But can we please can it with the "pregnant man" crap? You want to impress me with a pregnant man? Have him carry a baby without a uterus, then shove that baby out through his penis. THAT would be worthy of a headline. (And a Percocet.)

----------

ADDED 2/23/11: Can someone come explain to me why the hell this post is getting so much traffic the last three weeks? Curiosity killed the cat, and it's driving the blogger nuts! C'mon... Is there another one out there or something? Enlighten me!

According to the AP (via Yahoo), the new CEO for General Government Motors will receive a pay package totalling $9 Million dollars. Bad enough, since GM is hardly blowing away the competition...

More upsetting to me is the fact that they have rehired former CEO Fritz Henderson as a consultant. His compensation? $50,090 a month - for 20 hours of work per month.

Do the math. That's over $600,000 per year. More disgusting is this - at his scheduled number of hours per month, Henderson's pay works out to over $2,500 PER HOUR.

This is the savvy new economic management that's going to save GM from disaster and return the billions in bailout money to the taxpayers?

Here's an idea. Hire me as a consultant and I'll save the taxpayers a load of money for no further investment. That's right, I'll do it for free and it will only take a second. I'll just give them one line of advice that would be understood and embraced in the segment of America that actually pays bills:

If someone is bad enough to fire, don't hire them back at an hourly wage that is more than some Americans bring home for a month of hard work!Good grief.

"My thoughts are this," he said, in a morning speech before Conservative Political Action Conference. "The military is there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to protect and defend the United States of America."

Exactly right, Rick. Which means your concern for what they do in their private time is a side issue, and you should perhaps get over it.

Or better yet, why not get over yourself? You were voted down for a reason, Ricky. Or rather, for many valid reasons. One of which is, you're a pompous, condescending jackass. You are a genuinely unlikeable human being, and I'd vote for Barack Obama before I'd vote for you.

Santorum once stated that homosexuality was at the top of a slippery slope to incest and bestiality. Then, in 2003, he stated, "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Maybe on Planet TightAss that's a concession, but in the real world it's still comparing gays to monsters.

But for me, the most offensive, wrong-headed part of Santorum's remarks?

"We have a volunteer army," he added. "They can un-volunteer too."

Yeah. You spineless weasel. We're at war on two fronts. With the boffo foreign affairs team we've got, I feel sure we'll be dealing with Iran soon. Then, of course, there are a million Chinese soldiers looming off-stage. And Rick Santorum wants people who have volunteered to fight and die for their country (and for you) to "un-volunteer" because they don't meet his morally-constipated standard!Is he going to sign up to replace them? Will the Rick Santorums and the Ryan Sorbas be lining up to enlist?Hey, Rick... Why don't you drop by and pick up Ryan Sorba, and the two of you bugger off. Seriously. Those of us who would work to see our Constitution upheld and defended have important work to do right now, and the last thing we need is distraction from the mission.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Less than two hours ago I posted about an intolerant jackass getting booed at CPAC. I was happy to see the crowd reject the open hostility of Ryan Sorba, and was hoping perhaps this was a sign that more conservatives would be able to get past what are more properly personal matters and concentrate on the business at hand - fixing the government.

Again via HotAir, I learn that there's continuing tension. GOProud is co-sponsor of an event there, and yet you have some attendees who still want to exclude them or marginalize them.

I don't see an answer to this conflict. You have some conservatives out there who won't bend on this issue. There is no room for compromise with them. You have conservatives who happen to be gay being rejected outright for their personal lives, when what should matter right this moment is their dedication to the Constitution and their country. Then you have folks like me... strongly conservative when it comes to finance, national security and smaller government but who are extremely put off by the intense moral superiority complex of those who would limit government involvement in everything except personal behavior.

If we want to set America back on the correct path, we're going to have to work this out. Quickly. Otherwise, divided we'll lose. Some of you conservatives are going to have to come to terms with a hard fact... Namely, to win the next elections and stop our disastrous course, you need the gay conservatives, and the libertarian conservatives, and the independents that lean left but not this far left, even every moderate Democrat you can hook...

You're going to have to reach deep inside you, and come up with some good old fashioned compassion and tolerance for your fellow man - and never mind if he's wearing mascara. If he's supporting the candidate that will defend the Constitution, he's one of you.

I just watched a video (via HotAir) of asshat Ryan Sorba of the California Young Americans for Freedom. Mr. Sorba was soundly booed by the CPAC attendees for his homophobic, exclusionary remarks about GOProud, a group of openly gay Republicans.

Just yesterday, I held my nose and changed my voter registration to Republican. I figured, while some of their positions on social issues turn my stomach, if we don't save America for everyone now, there will never be rights for gays - or anyone else.

I just wanted to state - in public, and for the record - I think I may have been wrong. While I'm certain there are conservatives (a la Mr. Sorba) who do hold fast to their exclusion and hatred, there are clearly many who are more open than I imagined. I don't know that I've ever been so pleased to hear someone booed.

When it comes to the ridiculous waste of paper that is the Mt. Vernon Statement, nobody has put it better than Russ at That's Right. His advice to those who would spend valuable time coming up with yet another manifesto? Four words:

Former US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan (R) wants to be my new Congress-critter. She announced Wednesday that she plans to challenge blue dog Jason Altmire (D). In a statement, Ms. Buchanan said:

"I am running for Congress because Washington needs a new direction."

Sure. If by "new direction" you mean the same old crap.

Buchanan has worked as a public official for over twenty years, eight of them as a Bush-appointed US Attorney. She claims she has:

"always understood that I was accountable to our citizens to keep our communities safe and our taxpayers to protect their hard-earned money."

Yes, she's kept us all safe.

By making it a personal mission to hound, harass, and eventually imprison such dangerous, hardened felons as Tommy Chong. Which, I'm sure, in no way wasted vast amounts of taxpayer money and law enforcement manpower.

By going after medical examiner Cyril Wecht and doing her damnedest to take him down for the heinous crime of spending about four bucks of county money on faxes that weren't work related. Which, I'm sure, didn't waste literally years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

By jailing a doctor for doing his job - writing prescriptions. Never mind the expert witness who was hardly an expert, or the allegations of outright perjury. We're talking OxyContin here - hillbilly heroin - a scourge that justifies any cost and measures. Right?

But forget all that for now. (And I guess you should forget this excellent roundup of Buchanan's priorities and principles here at ReasonOnline.)

No, what's important is Ms. Buchanan wants to move Washington in a "new direction". Presumably away from the nanny-state foolishness she's spent her career advancing, as well as the arrogant, above-the-peons way of handling things that's become all too common in DC today.

Why, on the very first day after she announced her intentions, she showed in an interview with KDKA-AM that she's just a simple, humble public servant -- by telling the host to "Shut up", and then by threatening him:

"And you know, we still have defamation laws in this country. To the extent that you keep repeating things that are flat-out wrong, you're running afoul."

Her first day in the race and already she wants people to shut up or else. Charming lady. She doesn't even wait to be elected before she reminds us all that she's above us.

I predict the Republican party will love her. She wastes tax dollars on what are more properly social moral issues rather than criminal ones, makes drug-busting (even when questionable) a top priority, and has the chutzpa to come right out of the gate trying to threaten and silence her detractors.

I'll not vote for her. Oh, noes. Not at all. I'm going to try to help get one of her primary opponents on the ballot, and then elected to the House. And if the Republican Party backs this woman, and she ends up in the "R" slot on the ballot?

PA representatives Jason Altmire (D) and Tim Murphy (R) are showing they can work together in a bipartisan effort - to beg for federal funds. And they're willing to bend the space-time continuum to do it.

And now Altmire and Murphy have decided PA is entitled to FEMA money to clean up the mess. There's just one problem... FEMA rules say that to qualify for disaster relief, there must be one all-mighty big snowstorm and we actually had two storms. So despite the fact that two separate systems moved through the state three days apart, these two would like the feds to consider it one big storm and cough up some money. The Post-Gazette quotes Altmire:

"The other two big snowstorms, in March 1993 and Thanksgiving 1950, were at a time of the year when it got warm very quickly after the snowfall," he said. "This happened in the dead of winter when it's as cold as it gets. And the snow didn't melt in between. It just piled the second snowfall on top of the first, and that's why we think we can make the case that this should count as a singular event."

Yeah. Except that it was two distinct events. AND, it's supposed to be above freezing for most of the coming week, and when that happens snow... well... melts away on its own. Duh.

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about this, but for all my own complaining about the weather, it hardly strikes me as an emergency on a scale requiring federal funds. It doesn't really strike me as an emergency at all, matter of fact. Everywhere I go I see clean, dry roads. If we have areas of the state that haven't been cleared, send the trucks from areas (like mine) where it is clear to lend a hand. Why involve federal agencies and make a mountain out of a mole hill?

It's snow, fer gawd's sake. And a couple-three feet of it at that. I can just picture folks who live where it really snows (Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Buffalo, etc) laughing at us. A lot.

Ooooh. Three feet of snow in three days? We get that before breakfast - every winter! You people in Pennsylvania are a bunch of sissies, don'cha know?

But let's not be cynical... I'm sure this being an elecion year has nothing to do with these stalwart public servants going hat-in-hand to the federal government to bring home some money. I mean, I'm sure the Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency was designed with things like snow removal in mind, right? No sense letting that money sit around waiting for a hurricane, or an earthquake, or a terrorist attack when we can use it wisely for something like... rock salt.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Yesterday at HotAir, I read a post about Sarah Palin telling independents they need to choose a side:

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

To be honest, my first reaction was irritation.

I have never been registered as anything but independent. Never. Both parties have some goals and positions I find it impossible to support. Also, I'm an independent-minded, ornery creature by nature, and I have always tried to resist being pigeonholed into any "category". I have never once voted a straight party line - but the same time, I have never thrown away my vote on a third party candidate. (Although I got such an enormous kick out of Perot's antics, that might have been a near thing... )

So I was really annoyed with Sarah Palin.

But I've also been spending more time looking at the people who would like my vote this November. From the "D-Team", I have the known factor of Blue Dog Jason Altmire. From the "R-Team" however, the option isn't set until the primary. While I'm still learning about the people who will be vying for the nomination, I've already found one I just can't stomach at all and one who looks like I could probably get behind him. And then there's Specter to deal with...

Unfortunately, my state does not offer open primaries... This means that once again, I'll have to choose between candidates that others have decided on for me. Right?

Wrong. I've had it. And this election, I'm putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak.

This morning, my change of voter registration went in the mail. With all due apologies to Sarah Palin (not that she heard me grumbling about her anyway...), I've picked a side.

I'm now a registered Republican.

My mind is still independent. I'll probably continue to piss off conservatives with my libertarian streak and ideas - because "R" or no "R", I still refuse to back some of their positions. And I know I'll continue to choose candidates individually, rather than vote a party line... But the next few elections are gearing up to be a fight over the very definition of America.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

I saw this yesterday on JammieWearingFool. I know... I'm behind, but I'm catching up. Anyway...

"New Jersey's 86-year-old Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg was rushed to the hospital tonight after a fall."

EIGHTY-SIX FREAKING YEARS OLD?!? Who voted for this guy? Seriously. 'Fess up!

Look, I'm not saying the elderly (which is what Lautenberg is, to be blunt) can't contribute or still be an asset to humanity. I have an 88 year old grandmother who I dearly love. But I wouldn't VOTE FOR HER, fer gawd's sakes!

Why?

Because she's 88 years old! Not only has she reached an age where her health isn't what it used to be, but she's not exactly in touch with the needs and concerns of younger America. (There's nothing wrong with her mind. It's just that she's long past the time when she could relate to young families struggling, or had to seek a job in this economy.)

"Lautenberg would be 90 if he finished out his term."

And yet enough people voted for him that he's actually still in office. And he's not the only Senator who graduated high school with Fred Flintstone. (At one point I was starting to think they'd have Thurmond embalmed and propped in his office.) And what about Byrd? Where did they - or we - get the idea that these were lifetime positions?

Sometimes I think we get exactly what we deserve when it comes to Washington...

Nadya Suleman already makes me sick... A single, unemployed mother of fourteen, she still manages to afford plastic surgery, a gym membership, expensive mall brands preferred by teens, manicures, pedicures, and on and on ad nauseum. How? Well, what the taxpayers aren't providing she gets from her website nadyasulemanfamily.net, where she happily accepts Paypal donations and provides an address for any suckers philanthropists who'd like to send her "supplies".

Photo courtesy AOL Personals

I didn't think I could be more disgusted by her. I was wrong.

TMZ has a video up guaranteed to suppress your appetite. When the paparazzi caught up to OctoMom and her date, they asked him about his plans for Valentine's Day. His reply?

Monday, February 15, 2010

In the first storm, we got two feet. In the second, we lucked out, and only finished with six inches or so. (Mind you, this was sitting on top of the two feet we already had...) For days we've had "scattered flurries", which have added a fresh inch or so dusting nearly every day.

And it's still snowing.

This time they're calling for anywhere from three to ten inches. I can tell you it'll be more than three, because we've already had that much fall since 3:30 pm and it shows no sign of stopping.

Every light in my house is on. The car is idling in the driveway. (I wish I had an SUV. Hell, I wish I had two.) Every aerosol can in my house and garage is now empty: spray paint, WD-40, bug spray, hair spray... if it's in an aerosol can, I've been spraying it into the atmosphere. (The neighborhood smells like a chemical spill.) I've fed my dog. Twice.

Friday, February 12, 2010

The Other McCain is one of my favorite blogs - one of a dozen or so I check in on every day. Usually, I find I agree with a lot of what I read there...

Yesterday's post about the repeal of DADT was not only an opinion I disagree with completely, it's an example of where the conservative right loses me (again) on social issues.

Q. How would you feel if you turned on the TV and saw a Navy admiral flouncing down Castro Street in full uniform in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, right next to Dykes On Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

I have to say (respectfully, because I do generally enjoy his work) that this faux-poll question by RSM strikes me as disingenuous at best. Do conservatives sincerely believe if we repeal a wrong-headed policy, this will be the result?

I don't happen to be gay. And I'm hardly a fan of some of the things that happen in your typical San Fran Pride Parade... But I can not understand - or get behind - forcing people to deny a fundamental truth about their personality in order to voluntarily put their lives on the line for their country. It's not as if they aren't gays currently serving honorably in our military. There are, and we all know it. It's just that they can't SAY they're gay.

I've even tried to be crystal clear that although I oppose Kevin Jennings' position in the school system (something I keep reading about in connection to DADT - as though the two issues weren't apples and oranges) that my opposition to Jennings has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

But here, again, I find myself feeling alienated by conservatism as it applies to social issues.

I have a sincere question. I don't necessarily expect an answer from any reader (or the man who wants to be my congressman come November - I emailed him the same question), but I'm going to ask:

You're all about smaller government when it comes to taxes, entitlement programs, spending... all important things I agree with you on 100%. Why then, when it comes to what should more properly be church- or family-based moral discussions, do you suddenly have no problem with government involvement? You want the federal government to define the term "marriage", and you want homosexuals kept silent if they choose to serve YOU by enlisting.

Details are at the link, but basically you need a funny sign about global warming, and you need to get it on TV. Sounds simple, right?

Not if you live where I live - which is Nowhere. We don't get news vans running around here, like they do in areas of bigger (or more interesting) population. I'll try to give you an idea about news coverage in my area...

You know how every local news outlet has their D-listers? You know the ones I mean... the newslady who's a little too chubby, the guy with the minor speech impediment or facial tic... The poor deluded souls who haven't yet realized they'll never make network and who are constantly sent to cover the stories the more glamorous reporters won't touch. The ones who end up galoshes-deep in slime if there's a sewer break to cover, or who are sent to report from the side of the interstate during a sleet storm. (Heh. The sewer break thing actually happened to our slightly-too-chunky newslady once.)

Anyway, those are the only reporters you catch in my neighborhood, and even that is a rarity. So the odds of my picture making TV are pretty slim indeed. But that's OK. I'm gonna keep it out there on the off-chance they wonder about us out here in Nowhere and send out a satellite truck or chubby, tic-infested reporter.

My fellow blogger TChristopher is expecting a sign (and yours truly) in Punxsutawney. I'll have to disappoint. The PENNDOT trucks have made it impossible to leave my driveway, let alone make it to my least-favorite overgrown rat.

But it happier news, Russ at That's Right (who, incidentally has some pretty cool snow photos up, taken at different points in this past storm) has found Al Gore - buried in a snow bank in Jersey. Maybe we can get him to explain how AGW caused Snowmageddon...

Go check out Russ's photographic evidence of the man-bear-pig in the Jersey snow, and then tell me people don't sometimes share a mental wave-length. I actually had my sign and plan ready last night, and all I had to do this morning was head outside with it:

Like I said, odds of this hitting a newscast are about... well... about a snowball's chance in global warming. But if you do see this one on TV, it's MINE! Email and let me know so I can collect my money!

Monday, February 8, 2010

"...the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly increasing numbers. Marihuana is that drug - a violent narcotic - an unspeakable scourge - The Real Public Enemy Number One!"

Kinman Chan of San Francisco received an embarrassing beatdown at the hands of a female flight attendant after his erratic behavior caused the flight to be diverted. His excuse? He took a double dose of his medication - marijuana cookies.

This story is so utterly absurd, I almost suspect it's some kind of half-assed negative PR stunt by an anti-legalization activist. I saw it first on The Other McCain, where Smitty is being a good bit more generous in his assumptions than I am:

"Now, if it’s legal, fine. If the dope is prescription, fine. A note from your doctor, however, is not an excuse for crappy behavior. If taking the medication precludes air travel, so be it. You can’t always get what you want, and the need to have a safe, low-stress flight trumps any dude’s need to be baked at altitude."

I'm not willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and suggest he just avoid air travel.

But soon enough, the passenger became aggressive, Gorman says. "He's banging around, screaming in the back bathroom, he's opened all the compartments," the attendant remembers.

According to a criminal complaint, Chan walked out of the bathroom with his pants down."

I said, ‘You need to sit down now’,” Gorman said. He did not. "He went like that with his elbow," Gorman said, bracing her wrist as she threw an elbow at shoulder height. "Well, what I did, I just put him in an arm lock. To get his other arm, I had to jump up on the seat … He was resisting. He was stiff. At that point, I just put him into a choke hold."

That sound much like any stoner you know?

Be honest. Regardless of your personal opinions about - or experience with - marijuana, everyone knows at least one stoner. Does this sound like something they might do?

The answer is no. What it sounds like is the overacting of someone whose knowledge of pot begins and ends with government anti-drug propaganda and the movie "Reefer Madness".

This guy isn't as creepy as Rahm, either...

I've stated before - I support decriminalization. (There's that inner Libertarian again.) I think the drug war is a shameful waste of tax money and law enforcement manpower. I support a common-sense decriminalization, not a free-for-all dope fest. We have reasonable laws for the use of alcohol by adults, and I can't see any logical reason not to apply the exact same rules to pot.

Those laws would already cover this dolt. He'd still be sitting in a cell, charged with public intox on top of everything else, same as if he'd polished off six or seven mini whiskeys before going wild.

But wait... and watch... and mark my words. It won't take 24 hours for some neo-Prohibitionist to start yammering that this is an example of why it should never be legal, and that we should work to curtail the medical use of marijuana.

Whatever else happens to this dumbass, he should lose his prescription. There's evidence that medical marijuana can be beneficial to those suffering from a great range of problems...

Just two days ago I was advocating the death penalty for a certain rodent meteorologist...

This evening, I see on the local news we can expect another 6-10 inches of global warming tomorrow and Wednesday. (Allow me to point out that these same folks told us to expect 8-13 inches this past weekend. The total snowfall actually exceeded over twenty inches. Hope there's not a pattern I should be aware of...)

Anyway, in my last post about good ol' Phil, I said that every year someone or other tries to drag me to this rat-watching event. For fun. Riiight. Because standing outside in Pennsylvania at 4am in February is fun.

Next year, I'm going.

Oh-ho-ho, yes... I'm going.

Here's Phil in all his fat, furry glory. Take a good look. Good enough to last ya.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Hasbro is catching heat for selling a pink Ouija board marketed to girls eight and up. (They've been selling this thing for two years, so why the grumbling now, I don't know...)

Toy expert Chris Byrne, who writes for timetoplaymag.com, said he found nothing wrong with it and that he was unclear where people got the idea you could use a Ouija board to communicate with spirits or the dead.

"That is something that people have made up and it became part of our culture," he said. "It's always been entertainment. What I remember is trying to brain my younger brother with the board because he kept moving it. It's just funny that people make up this stuff."

An imdb.com search turns up no less than four dozen results for "Ouija" in various plots. And that doesn't include such movies as the newer "Paranormal Activities" and the all-time supernatural classic "The Exorcist".

Do we really want to run the risk of turning a large portion of America's tween girls into this thing?

I didn't know Rahm had a little sister....

Although, on further consideration, it could be worse. They could all turn into these things. (With no offense intended to my friends in Jersey...)

Yeah... given those options, I'll take the head-spinning, vomit-projecting demons any day. At least you can repel them with a little holy water and some prayers. What do you need to drive away those other... things? A grammar textbook and a bra? Scary!

Saturday, February 6, 2010

What he should have declared is a fatwa against a certain overgrown rat.

Get a load of southwestern PA this afternoon... And did I mention it's still snowing?

I included the swing set because, whether you have kids or not, everyone knows how big one is. At the right end is a buried teeter-totter.

This, at the edge of the driveway, is past my knees...

This is the fire hydrant out back - well, it's the top three inches of the hydrant, anyway. You can't see the street because it's just... gone.

And this.....

THIS is Public Enemy Number One, as far as I'm concerned. Furry little bastard.

Ol' Phil better worry less about losing his job to a robot, and worry more about me. The way I feel right this minute (after slogging through that mess, and falling on my rear end in it), he's really lucky we are in a state of emergency.

If I could shovel my way to Punxsutawney, I'd give Peta something new to complain about... I'd build a fire outside his tree stump and spit roast the little varmint.

Did I mention it's still snowing?

-------------------

UPDATE: Snowmageddon, indeed. The local rag reports a 21.1 inch total, per the nearest NWS station. I'm here to tell you there's better than two feet in my own yard, with drifts higher than that. Gloabal warming my arse.

Friday, February 5, 2010

You know... in twoposts now I've compared Rahm Emanuel to the liver fluke man.

Poor liver fluke man. What did he ever do to deserve that?

If you don't know, he's actually a character from an X-Files episode titled "The Host". If you've seen the episode, you know that he's a mutant created by human idiocy, and that he's a pitiful thing that doesn't deserve my scorn.

Rahm Emanuel, on the other hand....

I can't help it. (Nor do I try.) He gives me the heebie-jeebies. Has from the first time I saw him. It's an involuntary reaction -- like if you were to see a ginormous spider on your pillow moments after raising your head up. Ugh.

What he really reminds me of is some creepy Igor. That's right. I can easily imagine him whispering and lisping as he drags his club foot through the lab-OR-atory of life, snacking on insects and the life-blood of newborns, rubbing his knobby little hands together with glee at the idea of world domination.

Brrrrrrrrrrr..... Gives me shivers.

"Is it time to sign the health care bill, Mawstuh?"

That's more like it. I'm done picking on actual parasites. If Rahm wants me to quit picking on him, he'll have to crawl back under the coffin he calls home. Creep.

Russ over at That's Right disagrees with Sarah Palin's purported reaction to Rush Limbaugh, who took Rahm Emanuel's retarded remarks to a new level. No wonder, since it's being reported as "Palin Camp Rips Limbaugh".

But here's the thing... Did she "rip" him? It doesn't strike me that way. Greg Sargent emailed Palin's spokesperson, asking for a comment on Limbaugh's remarks. The reply?

“Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”

I think the reply is honest, mild and appropriate. But to run that response under the heading "Palin Camp Rips Limbaugh" seems disingenuous. What did you think she would say? That if it's a Republican, it's OK? But she hardly ripped anyone.

Are they going to call Palin for a comment every time the word "retarded" is spoken?

And it's irrelevant to the debate about Rahm Emanuel. I told you... I'm happy to see him fired for any reason - whether it be because he insulted the special needs community, or just because he gives me the creeps on a visceral level.

Anyone creepier than this guy has no business working in government. Or the private sector. Or anywhere the sun is shining....

On Wednesday, kite boarder Stephen Schafer was surrounded and attacked by sharks off Stuart Beach in Florida. While I realize it's tragic that a person has died, you almost have to look at this as a case of natural selection...

In the days before the attack, beaches were closed in Palm Beach County because THOUSANDS of sharks had been spotted. Turns out, large numbers of sharks are common in these waters at this time of year as they follow migrating schools of fish.

I can't muster up any sympathy.

If you put yourself into an environment where, just by being there, you have abdicated your position at the top of the food chain... well, you have no right to complain if you get eaten. The ocean is just not man's natural habitat. Any adult should be aware that by leaving dry land for open water, not only do you risk becoming an entree but you put yourself at a physical disadvantage to anything with flippers and fins.

There's a simple way to avoid shark attacks. Stay out of their house. At the very least, if you plan to go into the ocean, leave your human arrogance on the beach along with your shoes and remember that you are out of your element. And when there are THOUSANDS of predators right offshore, find something else to do for entertainment.

Lest you think I'm totally heartless, there are some shark attack victims I pity.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

While that's hardly as impressive as the 7 or 8 zillion hits some of the bigger bloggers have, to me it's kind of a big deal. When I started this I wasn't sure if anyone would read it - and yet I managed to hit that number in only a touch over five months.

I've learned a lot, and I've really come to enjoy it. (If you don't like my blog I guess that's bad news for you, since it means I intend to continue.) I hope I also continue to improve, and keep my traffic growing. And I've managed to snag a few "regular readers" along the way. (Yes, I've noticed you. I appreciate your continued tolerance of my quirky ways.)

I've even managed to get linked by some of my own favorite big blogs - and I'm thankful for each of those links. The list includes: Gateway Pundit, Riehl World View, and Legal Insurrection. (Last week, Professor Jacobson passed 2 million hits - but you won't catch him bragging about it. He is, no doubt, a bigger person than I when it comes to trivial things like traffic statistics. It probably protects him from the dreaded Blogger Mood Disorder. Congratulations, Professor!)

And last, but not nearly least, I'd like to thank The Other McCain who has also linked me - but far more importantly, Robert Stacy McCain is the man who came up with - and shared - the five rules to get a million hits on your blog in a year. It was actually this little nugget of advice that (once I worked up the nerve to follow it) finally brought me some noticeable traffic.

However, the smart newcomer to the 'sphere doesn't just suck up to big-traffic bloggers who can throw him major traffic (although he does that with a single-minded fanaticism), he also sucks up sideways and downward, to bloggers who might not be able to throw 10,000 hits a day, but who are nonetheless valued contributors to the blogging community.

I've still never managed a link from any of the big dogs he names - and I strongly suspect all my mail to Glenn Reynolds goes straight into a special DORK/SPAM file - but that doesn't mean I can't dream of an Instalanche one day, right? (Although if the post about that guy with the glasses didn't get his attention, it might be best to forget it for a while...) But following RSM's rules has brought more visitors to my blog, no doubt about it.

While we're on the subject of The Other McCain, there's another goal I have. I want to see my blog in the coveted FMJRA block he keeps right on the top of his site. It's my own fault I haven't made it yet, I suppose - I just need to link him more. (And more and more and more, if that's what it takes.)

But I can't help wondering if would swing any weight if I was a cute redhead.....

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Whaddya think? A little linky-love now?

...No? S'OK. I'll have to earn it like everybody else, I guess.

Meantime, I just wanted to say thanks... to everyone who has bothered to read my rambling rants, and everyone who (maybe misguidedly) encouraged my behavior by linking to those rants. And I promise not to make another post like this until I've collected some more zeroes.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-Md) has introduced an amendment to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United vs FEC. The proposed amendment will read:

‘‘ARTICLE—‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Their reasoning?

The Court’s action dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. The decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections.

Sounds reasonable, huh? We don't need huge conglomerations pumping zillions of dollars into politics to screw the little guy, right? But wait... Here's the most telling thing about this abomination amendment. From the Q&A, emphasis mine:

Will the Free Speech for People Amendment prevent people from joining together into political parties, citizens’ organizations, associations, unions or other groups to participate in elections and public debate?

No. The Free Speech for People Amendment applies to corporate entities and has no application to voluntary associations and does not change constitutionally protected freedom of association. People are always free to associate with others to promote their speech or engage in political activity.

That's right. They're going to level the playing field. By making sure the only enormous political donors will be unions.

This is no accident. This is a willful attempt to take over the political process entirely. This is a blatant power grab by the Democrats on behalf of the unions who put and keep them in office.

Think I'm exaggerating? I spent half an hour digging through the folks involved in freespeechforpeople.org, and what I turned up is infuriating. A list of their sponsoring organizations, and the people employed by those organizations, is very telling.

Starting with Voter Action:--Their legal director, John Bonifaz, founded the National Voting Rights Institute (now DEMOS). Attorneys for NVRI have acted as legal representatives for ACORN. Additionally, DEMOS and NVRI have worked with ACORN on voter registration initiatives.--Their administrative assistant, Oske Buckley, has worked for the ACLU and as an Americorps volunteer.--Dolores Huerta, a member of the advisory board, is "a Labor leader, organizer and social activist" who is Secretary Treasurer of AFL-CIO's Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee and co-Founder and first Vice President of the United Farm Workers union.

Next, the Center for Corporate Policy:--Ilyse Hogue is with MoveOn.org's Political Action Team.--Charlie Cray worked for Greenpeace USA between 1988 and 1999.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Getting a glimpse of the bigger picture? Are you pissed off yet?

We can NOT allow this to happen. The Democrats, backed by their unions and their "community organizers and the Soros billions, are trying to take over American politics by nothing less than defiling the Constitution to tilt the game in their favor. This can not stand.

--------------Linked By:

Russ at Thats-Right. He caught the story about the amendment before me, and has a good piece up. Go check it out.

The Other McCain. Smitty's got me in a post about "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". While I'm not thrilled to be "The Bad", at least I'm not "The Ugly"!

Thanks for the links. Please help spread this around. This thing must die.

-------------UPDATE: Dig more, find more...

-- Dolores Huerta, in addition to the affiliations I've linked above, is an Honorary Chair for the Democratic Socialists of America, and is a board member for the Fund For The Feminist Majority.

-- Ilyse Hogue (per Liberty Chick at Big Government) has been involved with SEIU in a joint campaign against the US Chamber of Commerce and sat on a Change For America's Future panel with Anna Burger (Change to Win/SEIU).

-------------UPDATE X2: Here's the thing... I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not having a panic attack. I don't think there's a chance in hell this thing would actually go through. What I'm endlessly astounded by is the extent of almost incestuous entanglements between these unions/community groups and the democrats. And I'm equally amazed by the unmitigated gall of these people. I know... I know... it was obvious long before now.

But it's like a bad movie. Rich, powerful entities who are all subtly but definitely connected into one "organized" force that insinuates itself into power and uses extreme measures in order to silence their opposition... Arrogant to the point of vandalizing the Constitution to better bend society to their views... Destroying quality of life for their people while living as royalty off the sweat of the working class...

Where's a band of scraggly rebel forces when you need them? Hell, for that matter, I'd settle for an alien invasion. Let the ships from Planet X blow Washington to holy hell. It'd be an improvement.

Sarah Palin has called for the firing of Rahm Emanuel over his use of the word retarded as a derogatory term. Opinions seem to be split on whether to agree with her. Even in my own family, we can't reach a consensus on this.

The blogosphere is no different. This morning I found myself in a rare difference of opinion with TChristopher from Republican Redefined, with whom I frequently agree 100% on other issues:

"...when did we as Republicans/Conservatives become so much like the Left that we have to jump all over these stories? When did we become the thought police and Big Brother watching the actions of all Americans and monitoring their every word? I fully understand that Emanuel is a member of the administration and is accordingly held to a higher standard, but seriously? Is this really grounds for resignation?"

In a word -- yes. And I'll tell you why I feel that way.

First of all, right or wrong, I'd like to see Rahm Emanuel fired for any legitimate reason we can come up with. Anything. The man repulses me on an almost primal level, on par with the liver-fluke man from the X-Files.

On second thought, this guy is LESS creepy than Rahm...

Second, it is very appropriate to hold one of the top advisers to the President of the United States to a higher level than Joe Normal next door. I don't see or foresee Sarah Palin riding around America on her tour bus, giving regular people hell for using this word. But Rahm Emanuel has his creepy little mouth right against the ear of the President, who has made his own thoughtless and insensitive remarks regarding the Special Olympics.

But mostly, it's the hypocrisy of the thing that galls me. The left invented political correctness. And while Sarah Palin compared it to the use of racial epithets, I can think of a dozen more examples, all of which would probably never pass the lips of a liberal politician. Can you imagine any of them saying "Oh, that's so gay!" as a description? Or denigrating welfare recipients?

It's the liberals who brought us the Thought Police in the first place. Now, if we use Harry Reid or Rahm Emanuel as examples, they're apparently as immune to their own rules as Congress will be immune to their health care nightmare should they ever manage to pass it. I say, hold them to the rules they made up for the rest of us to follow! In fact, isn't that another of their rules?

Finally, I'm not trying to be a hypocrite either. I'm guilty of using politically incorrect terms myself from time to time. I've referred to myself as a technotard on this very blog and I've been known to refer to myself as a Mick, just as examples. But there a a couple of big differences between Rahm Emanuel and me. (Not least of which - hopefully - I don't bring to mind the liver-fluke man.)

I am not in a high government position where my actions reflect on - and possibly influence - the President of the United States. And more importantly...? If I did say something that hurt someone and they let me know I had hurt them, I would immediately offer a sincere apology and retraction. I would not call the head of the Special Olympics (who is apparently the token apology-acceptor for any stupid remarks by this administration) and then send out a press release.

Hey, Liver-Fluke Man Rahm.... How hard would it have been to stick that creepy mug in front of a camera for two minutes and just say, "I'm sorry. I didn't mean any harm, and it was just a figure of speech, but I'll make an honest effort to be a little more sensitive." I think that would have gone a long way. Instead, he took the coward's way out and then had to be shamed into apologizing properly.

And lest you think Rahm is the only insensitive, intolerant, hypocritical liberal out there... here's a sample of the comments on this story from Democratic Underground, that bastion of progressive thought:

"Special" children is what you get when fathers impregnate daughters. That is why Caribou Barbie is so sensitive about this subject.

Sexism and implied incest. Nice. Very PC.

Thanks but no thanks, Sarah!!!! We don't need your input!As much as somepeople might have have issues with Rahm, it is SEVERELY stretching it to claim that what he said should be construed as a slur against individuals whom have various handicaps and that he needs to resign/be fired over THIS.

THIS from a poster with a gay pride flag for an avatar.

Using her own kid as a club to beat people with. Such a caring mother.

Beat people with her kid. Yes, that's what this is all about. And disparaging remarks about what kind of mother she is from the very people who would probably rather she had aborted what they no doubt consider a defective baby.

I agree with Palin. Fire him. Not because he said a stupid thing. Because he doesn't care that it was offensive, he believes the rules they have written don't apply to him, and he's no doubt mad as hell that he was forced to fake an apology to people he probably really does look down on.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

My first hint that the terror trials might happen in my back yard came in an email this morning from my congressman, Jason Altmire. (Yeah. He emails me. We're tight like that.)

So, first thing this morning I got a big dose of WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT with my coffee. Great. Slack off on the news for a couple of days and see what happens? They're trying to sneak a terror trial past me. Bastards.

The trials would have to move to a federal courthouse, military base or other site in a state where crimes related to the Sept. 11 attacks were committed, with likely options including White Plains in the Southern District of New York, Newport News or Alexandria in the Eastern District of Virginia or a venue in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

What the...?!

Now, I'm not Altmire's biggest fan. He's received more than one email from me suggesting he have his things packed and ready come November, to make his move home easier. But based on his email, he either has his head screwed on straight on this issue, or he's aware that he and his Pennsylvania counterparts in the Senate are already on thin ice. Whatever his reason, he's on the right side this time. From the email:

You may have recently heard reports that the 9/11 terrorist trials may be held in western Pennsylvania. Today, I sent a letter to President Obama stating my strong opposition to this plan and any other plan that would allow these trials to be held in U.S. civilian courts.

--snip--

Please know that I will continue to work with our Senators and western Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation to prevent these terrorists from being brought to our region.

President Obama and the rest of his tone deaf administration had better figure out right quickly that there is almost nowhere in America that they can move the terror trials that they won't be met with anger and protest.

The unrelenting pressure from American citizens has them finally realizing New York was a terrible idea for a venue. We need to keep at it and hound them out of every city they try to endanger, and they'll eventually cave just as they have over New York. When push comes to shove, this entire administration is weak and overly sensitive to criticism. If we all complain long and loud over every venue they bring up, eventually they'll have to take it back to Gitmo where it belongs...